Search Forums

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

I think the only admission is that it turned out to be improper - the original intent wasn't.

The intention is very much in question and given the obstruction and attempts to mislead congress appears to be improper as well.

Originally Posted by JJ

Again, are you saying that they knew that they were deliberately breaking the law?

The heads of the IRS?
I would say that given their position they should have known and are liable for knowing (It is their job).

Originally Posted by JJ

Only if congress isn't just after political blood, which it is. Then it is entirely moral.

That isnt' how the rule of law works. You don't get to lie to the courts just because they are trying to send you to jail.
You seem to think that if there are politics involved then there is no law against lying to congress or misleading those who have oversight over you.

Originally Posted by JJ

If congress is wasting time and millions on Benghazi & IRS & ObamaCare, all lost causes, and all for political gain then I see no reason to help.

That is very telling IMO.

Originally Posted by JJ

Obstructing political upmmanship doesn't sound too terrible.

Good, just obstruct your boss when he asks for his property/records that you were in charge of.

Originally Posted by JJ

Benghazi is entirely relevant - it's the same pattern of political gamesmanship for purely political gain that feeds into the paranoia around Obama and his Kingsmanship.

It doesn't counter or address any point being made here in relation to this case though.

Originally Posted by JJ

Well, then future IRS will be better at thinking outside the box. I don't see how that would making things process faster to do it individually than as one block. But who cares - you're arguing about administrivia and attempting to make it sound like a grand conspiracy; when all it is some process having unintended consequences and Republicans turning it into something more than it really is.

No, I'm not.

Originally Posted by JJ

Sorry, I thought you were being current. Nevertheless, the point that you rebut still stands - you appear to have a problem with the President or anyone doing their job just because the results aren't to your political liking. Which is fine but don't turn it into some weird conspiracy. Nobody thinks that Bush's appointee at FEMA, Brown's disastrous handling of Katrina was some conspiracy against Democrats.

First, current to what?
second, that isn't a rebuttal or even a valid response to the point I made.

Originally Posted by JJ

That's what accountants are for.

Not really. I have no state appointed and paid for accountaint. Nor can the law be seen as forcing me to have one.
If it is, then it is tyranical in nature.

The law is FOR the people, not for the peoples accountaints, or lawyers.

Originally Posted by JJ

Meh, being incompetent isn't illegal.

Yes... it is.
It's called criminal negligence. if you fall asleep at the switch and kill people, you are going to jail.. and should.

Originally Posted by JJ

People have already lost their jobs and their careers - I'm not really sure what else needs to be done. It's hardly something that deserves prison. It's time to move on.

Someone was fired? .. who?

Originally Posted by JJ

Then you have no point here at all. All you're saying is that you want some paper pushers to go to prison for what is really a simple mistake.

Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

The intention is very much in question and given the obstruction and attempts to mislead congress appears to be improper as well.

Then you are entering conspiracy theory territory if you believe that the IRS knowingly instructed their people on the ground to deliberately slow down Conservative approvals.

The heads of the IRS?
I would say that given their position they should have known and are liable for knowing (It is their job).

I'm not saying their responsibility is to know but it appears they forgot or felt made a judgment call that didn't pan out. To turn it into a conspiracy theory of deliberately breaking a law and concealing it appears to be at odds that they would do it via recorded email.

And that's the problem with these conspiracy theories - somehow people are smart enough to manipulate an enormous organization to fulfill their goals yet lacking the smarts to conceal it properly!

That isnt' how the rule of law works. You don't get to lie to the courts just because they are trying to send you to jail.
You seem to think that if there are politics involved then there is no law against lying to congress or misleading those who have oversight over you.

Sure, much like the Kennedy, Moon, 9/11 conspiracies - they see no end and indeed it is well known that counter facts don't stop this kind of thinking. That Gowdy is still investigating Benghazi, no doubt slow walking that for a big announcement in 2016, is clearly nonsensical. As is this IRS 'scandal'. As is the delusions around getting rid of ObamaCare.

It is telling that Republicans are engaging in non-substantive issues around conspiracies that do nothing to move the country forward and everything to do with attacking the sitting president, and the future 2016 nominee.

Good, just obstruct your boss when he asks for his property/records that you were in charge of.

Well, if he's doing it for his own political gain and to attack me for some falsified narrative, I will.

It doesn't counter or address any point being made here in relation to this case though.

It demolishes the entire case as political grandstanding. As usual.

No, I'm not.

Seems like you're just interested in putting some administrators into prison for merely making a mistake in doing their job.

First, current to what?
second, that isn't a rebuttal or even a valid response to the point I made.

Yes it does - trace it back.

Not really. I have no state appointed and paid for accountaint. Nor can the law be seen as forcing me to have one.
If it is, then it is tyranical in nature.

The law is FOR the people, not for the peoples accountaints, or lawyers.

Goodness me, the world is complicated! It doesn't make it tyrannical because you need experts to understand the world you live in. The law limits what people can do - if they don't know the law, then they have to find out. If they forget the law then they make mistakes like Lerner. And if your FiL should get a free pass then so should Lerner.

You appear to forget that Lerner is also a person. Why should only your FiL get a free pass?

Yes... it is.
It's called criminal negligence. if you fall asleep at the switch and kill people, you are going to jail.. and should.

Sure, that's different from what you appear to be suggesting at the beginning. It's one thing to claim criminal negligence on the one had yet still 'question' whether it was intentional.

Someone was fired? .. who?

At least Lerner and I'm sure others.

JJ: All you're saying is that you want some paper pushers to go to prison for what is really a simple mistake.
Straw-man.. or just a bad summary.
Try again.

Well, do you want them to go to prison or not? It appears to be yes.
Did they make an administrative mistake? Yes they did.
Do you think it was deliberate or negligence? Negligence.

My summary stands - you just want to put people in prison for an administrative error. Well done - I'm sure it's worth the millions spent on this.

Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

Then you are entering conspiracy theory territory if you believe that the IRS knowingly instructed their people on the ground to deliberately slow down Conservative approvals.

There is nothing about the phrase "conspiracy theory" that discredits a position.
unless you are attempting to use it as a rehtoric tool to appeal to emotions.

Originally Posted by JJ

I'm not saying their responsibility is to know but it appears they forgot or felt made a judgment call that didn't pan out. To turn it into a conspiracy theory of deliberately breaking a law and concealing it appears to be at odds that they would do it via recorded email.

And that's the problem with these conspiracy theories - somehow people are smart enough to manipulate an enormous organization to fulfill their goals yet lacking the smarts to conceal it properly!

"LOSING" the emails would have been effective.. and it was certainly attempted.
I don't see why we should assume "competent" criminals, especially when we are talking about people in the gov.

The "lies" were evidenced as soon as the e-mails were EASILY found, and it was revealed that IT guys were never asked by those who reported them to be lost or destroyed.

Do you recognize those as lies now? If not what are they?

Originally Posted by JJ

Sure, much like the Kennedy, Moon, 9/11 conspiracies - they see no end and indeed it is well known that counter facts don't stop this kind of thinking. That Gowdy is still investigating Benghazi, no doubt slow walking that for a big announcement in 2016, is clearly nonsensical. As is this IRS 'scandal'. As is the delusions around getting rid of ObamaCare.

It is telling that Republicans are engaging in non-substantive issues around conspiracies that do nothing to move the country forward and everything to do with attacking the sitting president, and the future 2016 nominee.

Empty rehtoric given the evidence. There is actual evidence driven criminal investigation, that makes your response hollow and meaningless.

Originally Posted by JJ

Well, if he's doing it for his own political gain and to attack me for some falsified narrative, I will.

Then you should be fired or face jail time, especially where it has to do with the buisness of the people and you being intentially deceptive.

Originally Posted by JJ

It demolishes the entire case as political grandstanding. As usual.

A politically motivated investigation is irrelevant where there are facts that also justify it.
Haven't you ever heard that our enemies are our friends because they show us our faults?

One good thing about having political opponents is that it should keep both sides playing honest, because dishonesty will be punished.
As it ought to be.

So, just because the prosicutor is reblican and hates dems with a passion (assuming for argument), that doesn't make the evidence of deciet disapear nor justify those not fulfilling their duty bound by the law.

You think that because you work for someone that doesn't like you, that you are thus justified to sabatoge their buisness, or not do what you are contracted to do. That is the most dishonarable thing I have ever heard from you.

Originally Posted by JJ

Goodness me, the world is complicated! It doesn't make it tyrannical because you need experts to understand the world you live in. The law limits what people can do - if they don't know the law, then they have to find out. If they forget the law then they make mistakes like Lerner. And if your FiL should get a free pass then so should Lerner.

You appear to forget that Lerner is also a person. Why should only your FiL get a free pass?

I didn't ask for a free pass.
I pointed out that the law is made complicated on purspose so as to be used as a weapon against the people. Hence why EVERYONE is guilty of some tax crime.
Hence why an educated person is basically incapable of doing their taxes without fear of potential prosocution.

It isn't because the person is incapable, but because the law is intentionally complex and confusing. Basically it wasn't written for the people it applies to.

Originally Posted by JJ

Sure, that's different from what you appear to be suggesting at the beginning. It's one thing to claim criminal negligence on the one had yet still 'question' whether it was intentional.

There is a clear distinction.

Intentionally flipping a switch in order to cause two trains to crash, is criminal.
Being properly trained and fully qualified, and mistakenly flipping the switched (or failing to) can be criminal negligence.

Originally Posted by JJ

At least Lerner and I'm sure others.

Learner wasn't fired she resigned.

Originally Posted by JJ

Well, do you want them to go to prison or not? It appears to be yes.
Did they make an administrative mistake? Yes they did.
Do you think it was deliberate or negligence? Negligence.

My summary stands - you just want to put people in prison for an administrative error. Well done - I'm sure it's worth the millions spent on this.

It is not my position that it was negligene. I believe intent was involved, hence the hiding of e-mails.
So...no your summary is incorrect.

I have offered the bare min that the evidence supports so far, and I do think jail time should be served, but it isn't because of the administration, it is because those in power should not cross the line that they did, it is dangerous and that message needs to be loud and clear to the gov.

Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

There is nothing about the phrase "conspiracy theory" that discredits a position.
unless you are attempting to use it as a rehtoric tool to appeal to emotions.

Then we are clear then that you are advocating a possible conspiracy between at least the IRS heads to deliberately flout the law in discriminating against conservative groups?

"LOSING" the emails would have been effective.. and it was certainly attempted.
I don't see why we should assume "competent" criminals, especially when we are talking about people in the gov.

Right - they aren't competent criminals because they are not criminals. This is not a deliberate attempt to break the law and to mask it. It is merely some administrators doing their jobs and getting caught in a political battle in order to embarrass and harm the President.

The "lies" were evidenced as soon as the e-mails were EASILY found, and it was revealed that IT guys were never asked by those who reported them to be lost or destroyed.
Do you recognize those as lies now? If not what are they?

What lies?

Empty rehtoric given the evidence. There is actual evidence driven criminal investigation, that makes your response hollow and meaningless.

And I'm sure there are reams of undiscovered evidence for Benghazi and/or ObamaCare. But that's how these conspiracies always work -- accusing the other side of hiding facts and turning any action towards that goal. But note that we are now talking about hiding facts, not the 'crime' itself. The narrative just keeps shifting.

Then you should be fired or face jail time, especially where it has to do with the buisness of the people and you being intentially deceptive.

I'm pretty sure that there have been a number of lost careers already. I don't see why jail time is necessary.

A politically motivated investigation is irrelevant where there are facts that also justify it.
Haven't you ever heard that our enemies are our friends because they show us our faults?

I don't see any benefit in pursuing administrators for an administrative oversight and error. I also don't see why the IRS needs to anything other than slow walk this political show.

One good thing about having political opponents is that it should keep both sides playing honest, because dishonesty will be punished.
As it ought to be.

Yes, and I continue to ignore Republican grandstanding over nothing.

So, just because the prosicutor is reblican and hates dems with a passion (assuming for argument), that doesn't make the evidence of deciet disapear nor justify those not fulfilling their duty bound by the law.

No, but it does make their disproportionate effort seem to be more political than actually attempting to fix anything. I think the IRS will be more careful in future and I still have no idea what the Benghazi scandal is about and ObamaCare is now deeply so much part of the fabric the medical industry that the political cost to undo it would be enormous. So while there may be 'facts' discovered to support whatever case is being supported, the case itself seems to be just political grandstanding. That's all it is.

You think that because you work for someone that doesn't like you, that you are thus justified to sabatoge their buisness, or not do what you are contracted to do. That is the most dishonarable thing I have ever heard from you.

I think people that are dishonest don't deserve honesty back.

I didn't ask for a free pass.
I pointed out that the law is made complicated on purspose so as to be used as a weapon against the people. Hence why EVERYONE is guilty of some tax crime.
Hence why an educated person is basically incapable of doing their taxes without fear of potential prosocution.

How odd that a Christian, a religion where everyone is unfairly charged with sin, would complain about the same when it comes to law!

Anyway, I have no idea of what you're really talking about here. Most people can get away with the EZ forms and there are a lot of systems such as TurboTax that make all this easier to manage. If you have a business then it is your responsibility to make sure that you're doing everything properly. I don't see how this is tyranny.

It isn't because the person is incapable, but because the law is intentionally complex and confusing. Basically it wasn't written for the people it applies to.

Goodness me, you see conspiracy everywhere! It's complex because we are dealing with a complex topic; and there are businesses that have probably demanded exceptions and there are likely political favors and backscratching going on.

There is no 'intentional' complexity going on here to trap people - what are you talking about borders on paranoia about the government trying to get you whereas the truth is the government really helps the rich and powerful Your focus on yourself and your own troubles misses the real big picture.

There is a clear distinction.

Intentionally flipping a switch in order to cause two trains to crash, is criminal.
Being properly trained and fully qualified, and mistakenly flipping the switched (or failing to) can be criminal negligence.

I agree - but you're talking about millions of dollars and time spent on a very small case about some administrative error. I don't see why this is still important to pursue.

Learner wasn't fired she resigned.

Same difference - those kind of people are given the opportunity to leave with some dignity. With her career ruined, you still want to see her in prison for what amounts to mistake.

It is not my position that it was negligene. I believe intent was involved, hence the hiding of e-mails.
So...no your summary is incorrect.

Ah, so you are actually saying that Lerner deliberately broke the law and intentionally created a process that would delay conservatives. And you still haven't proven that emails have been 'hidden' - thus far, all I see is that they haven't provided them - but they have provided them now so there's no hiding any more. You have no case here regarding about hiding.

I have offered the bare min that the evidence supports so far, and I do think jail time should be served, but it isn't because of the administration, it is because those in power should not cross the line that they did, it is dangerous and that message needs to be loud and clear to the gov.

Meh, if this were a clear example of such then I might side with you but it appears to be political grandstanding much like all the other Republican 'scandals'. You can dress it up as much as you like but the fact is there are worse crimes we could be pursuing.

Given that you are active in this thread again, will you be addressing any of the outstanding issues you ignored earlier?

Originally Posted by Post 207

Originally Posted by JJ

Yes, but they weren't picked because of ideology but because of frequency. This was already noted a long time ago by yourself when you pointed out to Lerner's 'apology'.

And for which you’ve offered no legal defense. How “frequency” of application allows for removal of due process is something the IG wondered at as well, hence why they demanded the BOLO list be terminated.

Of course this misses the point I was making. Even if “frequency” (no evidence has been offered by you to that claim directly to show that they were disproportionately frequent) was the motivating factor for creation of the list, that doesn’t explain why only Conservatives were selected for delay. As we know there were liberal names on the list too, but mysteriously only Conservative applications were noticed for delayed processing and extraneous data requests.

Originally Posted by JJ

This is rubbish - this was clear way back last year when the 'apology' letter was written.

I see this as an assertion. Do you have evidence that statistical data was used concerning frequency to compile the BOLO list?

Originally Posted by JJ

Nope - those are additional possibilities that you choose to ignore.

So you are retracting the claim that liberal key words should never have been on the BOLO list in the first place?

Which leaves us still at the question of why only Conservatives were targeted if there were sufficient liberal applications to trigger BOLO words (under your understanding of the list’s creation).

Bottom line, you have to explain why liberal groups were mysteriously not targeted by the BOLO. You offered up a bunch of bare assertion fallacies, but no actual argument.

Originally Posted by JJ

I meant that they would have passed scrutiny faster because they were better prepared.

Ok, please support this assertion. “they [liberal applications] would have passed scrutiny faster because they were better prepared.”

Originally Posted by JJ

I don't believe that they were selecting out groups because they were conservative.

I didn’t ask you that. I asked you: “was [there] a legally justifiable reason for only selecting out conservative groups?”

I didn’t say “because they are conservative.” I’m asking what legal reason would there have been for only selecting these groups, all of which are conservative?

Originally Posted by JJ

Again, no names, no people. That's not really a detailed enough timeline.

(This is a challenge you have already been issued, so continued use of this claim without support is a rule violation), Support or retract that individual identities are required to establish organizational culpability.

Further, we both know you are just trying to assuage your cognitive dissonance here. The fact is, and it has been shown twice now, the IG notified the IRS that he BOLO list was illegal. The IRS agreed and removed the list (a specific person did that, the Director of EO). The list was then later reinstated by the IRS (knowing it was illegal) which we’ve later learned was directed by the Office of the General Counsel.

Of course you object saying “I don’t know who that person is.” Which is nonsensical. The fact that you don’t know who at WellPoint directed the rescission of health insurance doesn’t stop you from tilting against the windmills on that issue. And the fact is, you do. We already discussed it for more than a page. I pointed out how the office was organized and who its officials were. Hell I linked you their damn org chart, so complaints about you not knowing who was involved only arise from your lack of reading posts or remembering them, not from a lack of information.

Originally Posted by JJ

I don't have that level of information and neither do you for your claims.

Hmm, you seem to have not answered my question, so I’ll have to issue a challenge.
You said: “And I have already pointed out several possible reasons.”
Please support or retract that you pointed out those reasons and where.

Originally Posted by JJ

So there's really not that much to worry about.

Then why not actually respond to my quote where I point out that your statement was incorrect, “As already demonstrated several people, including senior officials have been fired or forced to resign (which is a legal action)?” Why only a weasely type response fit more for the Salon.com forums than a serious discussion? Perhaps you are more worried than you like to think you appear?

Originally Posted by JJ

Might I remind you that you still believe that Obama is either complicit or incompetent. Or is that not the angle you are trying to push any more? If not, then what exactly is your point?

Might I remind you that you also think that Mr. Obama is either complicit or negligent? That you conceded that point long ago, but then hedged arguing that it wasn’t really important that he was complicit or negligent?

Originally Posted by JJ

I am looking for the four year comment to ensure that you're not exaggerating things.

So you concede the two and three year segments then. Thank you.

Originally Posted by JJ

Wait, just because the BOLO was created in 09, it doesn't mean that they were caught in 09. When were they caught?

That isn’t what I said at all. I said the cases were started in Nov 2009. That they had been languishing for 1138 days in Dec 2012. I would recommend re-reading my response.

If so, then I would recommend reviewing your math. You’ll note that the IG audit notes that cases had been open up to 1138 days as of Dec 2012, meaning they were targeted in Nov 09 (when the original BOLO list was created, see above for link to timeline). Let’s do a little counting.

I also notice that you conceded that I did offer the relevant information concerning that claim in my post before last given your lack of response. Thank you again.

Originally Posted by JJ

I haven't said the case was dismissed, nor did I say this had a direct link to the IRS acting 'illegally'. I point this out specifically, that this is was an initial conspiracy-laden attempt that has failed.

Except that this was not an “initial” attempt so your statement is either incoherent or incorrect. Your choice on which. The story linked related to a single motion (in more than a dozen) that was rejected by the judge.

The only thing your link showed was that True the Vote did not present sufficient evidence that the IRS could not be trusted to produce the emails.
It did not:
1) Relate to the legality of the charges against the IRS as detailed earlier.
2) Relate to the finding that the IRS has not released relevant information as part of discovery (only that they don’t need an outside agent to facilitate).
3) Have any say on the merit of the BOLO list, the questions asked or anything else offered by me in this thread (hence it is a red herring).

Originally Posted by JJ

Whatever, trying to turn this around by your misrepresentations is ludicrous.

JJ, you either need to officially retract this claim or support it. Simply ignoring it is insufficient. Support or retract that this finding was related to the factual nature of the charges brought against the IRS.

Originally Posted by JJ

Prove that the IRS would rather than could.

A challenge doesn’t make any sense here since I was clarifying the position by asking you a question, not making a claim.

The IRS will levy a fine against a delinquent tax return unless there are reasonable causes for not paying that tax rate, and as you’ve conceded, thinking you will get tax exempt status in the future is not one of those reasons. http://www.irs.gov/uac/Help-Yourself...ue-Tax-Returns

• If a return is not timely filed, IRC 6651(a)(1) provides for a penalty of 5% if the failure is for not more than one month, with an additional 5% for each month or fraction thereof during which the failure continues, but not in excess of 25%.
• The failure to file (FTF) penalty under IRC 6651(a)(1) applies to any delinquent return or substitute for return, except when the failure to file was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.
• The FTF penalty is computed on the net amount due. The net amount due is the tax liability required to be shown on the return reduced by payments of tax on or before the date prescribed for payment and by the amount of allowable credits against the tax, which may be claimed on the return.
A. If valid extensions of time to file have been granted, the FTF penalty is not applicable until the expiration of the extension and then only from that date on. An extension may be considered invalid if tax is not properly estimated. In these instances, the FTF penalty is computed from the original due date.

So we see these fines are automatic. They can be waived later under certain limited circumstances, but that doesn’t really help the organization attempting to fundraise.

Originally Posted by JJ

Well, that is still not proven as your conspiratorially-mind case with True the Vote above has failed its first legislative action. Who cares if they're whining about having been hard done-by. They have to prove it.

Support or retract that they failed a “legislative” action.

Support or retract that the judicial ruling referenced above has anything to do with the charges levied in the case.

Support or retract that this is the “first” action in this judicial case (given that the motion to dismiss preceded this I think you could save yourself some heartache by simply retracting this).

Originally Posted by JJ

You haven't proven they would always seize the money in the first place. This is a nonsense challenge because you haven't proven your own case either.

Irrelevant. You made the following claim: “if the IRS pre-fined someone then they'll get paid back with interest” Support or retract this claim.

Originally Posted by JJ

This partisan angle to link this to Obama was also just noted by Cummings:

Do you mean the same Rep. Cummings who illegally requested and received private tax payer data?

"Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire

"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton

Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

Then we are clear then that you are advocating a possible conspiracy between at least the IRS heads to deliberately flout the law in discriminating against conservative groups?

Yup, I think that is where the evidence leads to the reasonable man.

Originally Posted by JJ

Right - they aren't competent criminals because they are not criminals. This is not a deliberate attempt to break the law and to mask it. It is merely some administrators doing their jobs and getting caught in a political battle in order to embarrass and harm the President.

your opinion is noted.

Originally Posted by JJ

What lies?

Emails destroyed and unrecoverable.
There does appear to be an attempt to destroy the E-mails, but they were not unrecoverable, and their existence was not honestly persuid by those who were charged with providing them to the congress (their lawful obligation).

Originally Posted by JJ

And I'm sure there are reams of undiscovered evidence for Benghazi and/or ObamaCare. But that's how these conspiracies always work -- accusing the other side of hiding facts and turning any action towards that goal. But note that we are now talking about hiding facts, not the 'crime' itself. The narrative just keeps shifting.

I don't understand how this addresses my point at all, or how it is relevant to what is being said.
I wasn't talking about hidden unknown possible evidence, I'm talking about evidence of Hiding relevant evidence.

Originally Posted by JJ

I'm pretty sure that there have been a number of lost careers already. I don't see why jail time is necessary.

ummmm...?

Originally Posted by JJ

I don't see any benefit in pursuing administrators for an administrative oversight and error. I also don't see why the IRS needs to anything other than slow walk this political show.

I'm not really interested in what you don't see the point of.

I'll assume my point stands.

Originally Posted by JJ

Yes, and I continue to ignore Republican grandstanding over nothing.

Well, your idea of "nothing" is not really reflective of reality.
Our gov officials should not lie or mislead congress for any reason. And doing so is a crime and should be.

Originally Posted by JJ

No, but it does make their disproportionate effort seem to be more political than actually attempting to fix anything. I think the IRS will be more careful in future and I still have no idea what the Benghazi scandal is about and ObamaCare is now deeply so much part of the fabric the medical industry that the political cost to undo it would be enormous. So while there may be 'facts' discovered to support whatever case is being supported, the case itself seems to be just political grandstanding. That's all it is.

When you say "benghazi" or "obamacare"... all i hear is "bla bla".
Because it isn't relevant.

Originally Posted by JJ

I think people that are dishonest don't deserve honesty back.

Please tell that to all your employers.

Originally Posted by JJ

How odd that a Christian, a religion where everyone is unfairly charged with sin, would complain about the same when it comes to law!

Anyway, I have no idea of what you're really talking about here. Most people can get away with the EZ forms and there are a lot of systems such as TurboTax that make all this easier to manage. If you have a business then it is your responsibility to make sure that you're doing everything properly. I don't see how this is tyranny.

Not relevant.skipped.

Originally Posted by JJ

Goodness me, you see conspiracy everywhere! It's complex because we are dealing with a complex topic; and there are businesses that have probably demanded exceptions and there are likely political favors and backscratching going on.

There is no 'intentional' complexity going on here to trap people - what are you talking about borders on paranoia about the government trying to get you whereas the truth is the government really helps the rich and powerful Your focus on yourself and your own troubles misses the real big picture.

The issue is not complex at all, and certainly not necissarily so.
Evidenced by the fact that it hasn't always been this way.
and by the fact that there are other superior options.

Originally Posted by JJ

Goodness me, you see conspiracy everywhere! It's complex because we are dealing with a complex topic; and there are businesses that have probably demanded exceptions and there are likely political favors and backscratching going on.

There is no 'intentional' complexity going on here to trap people - what are you talking about borders on paranoia about the government trying to get you whereas the truth is the government really helps the rich and powerful Your focus on yourself and your own troubles misses the real big picture.

That's o.k.

Originally Posted by JJ

Same difference - those kind of people are given the opportunity to leave with some dignity. With her career ruined, you still want to see her in prison for what amounts to mistake.

What mistake?

Originally Posted by JJ

Ah, so you are actually saying that Lerner deliberately broke the law and intentionally created a process that would delay conservatives. And you still haven't proven that emails have been 'hidden' - thus far, all I see is that they haven't provided them - but they have provided them now so there's no hiding any more. You have no case here regarding about hiding.

That is not reflective of reality. Saying they don't exist is not "failing to provide them" it is criminal obstruction if it isn't true.
It wasn't true.
Also, the reason they "didn't have them" was due to an apparent criminal attempt to destroy evidence. By whom specifically may be in question.. but the evidence says it happened.

Originally Posted by JJ

Meh, if this were a clear example of such then I might side with you but it appears to be political grandstanding much like all the other Republican 'scandals'. You can dress it up as much as you like but the fact is there are worse crimes we could be pursuing.

I doubt it, and thank God we can multi task.

Basically any point you have brought up that anyone cares to address here in this thread as quickly and easily shown you to be wrong or not reflective of reality. Thanks for your "participation". You are more than welcome to the last word as we sit back and watch more feet dragging of the entire process.

Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

This case, which survived the "no harm no foul" bizarre dismissal request by Treasury last year, just won a motion to compel the IRS to release files related to discovery. This motion is why the case JJ and I discussed above was not appealed (not appealing makes it easier for them to join a class action). Given the almost certain evidence to come from this discovery process, the case will likely be granted Class status, which dramatically reduces the IRS' ability to use the 6103 rule as a shield against discovery.

In litigation filed in 2013 by conservative organizations targeted by Lerner and her colleagues at the IRS, a federal judge granted a motion to compel and ordered the IRS to produce the names of the 298 targeted organizations identified by the IRS for the Treasury Inspector General.

In 2013, NorCal Tea Party Patriots, the Faith and Freedom Coalition of Ohio, the Texas Public Policy Foundation and a number of other conservative organizations (ten in all), sued the IRS, the Treasury Department, Lois Lerner and other individual IRS employees.

They described themselves as organizations “comprised of individual citizens who have joined together to exercise their rights to freedom of speech and expression” and who “dissent from the policies or ideology of the” current administration. They claimed that, on the basis of their beliefs, they had been subjected “to delays and intrusive scrutiny during the tax-exempt status application process.” According to the ten plaintiffs, this violated the Privacy Act, the First and Fifth Amendments, and 26 U.S.C. §6103, a federal statute that protects the confidentiality of tax return information.

A federal judge ordered the IRS to produce the names of the 298 targeted organizations identified by the IRS for the Treasury Inspector General.

A similar lawsuit filed by True the Vote in federal court in the District of Columbia was unfortunately dismissed in October 2014 by a federal judge who said the case was “moot” after the IRS finally granted True the Vote’s tax exempt status in the middle of the litigation.

However, the Justice Department’s similar motion to dismiss the Ohio lawsuit failed last year. In a July 17, 2014 order, Federal District Court Judge Susan Dlott dismissed the claim under the Privacy Act and all of the claims against individual IRS employees, but she refused to dismiss the constitutional and Section 6103 claims against the IRS and the Treasury Department.

Since then, the plaintiffs have been trying through the discovery process to identify all of the conservative organizations unfairly targeted by the IRS so that they can seek class certification. If they can convince Judge Dlott to certify a class, then the lawsuit would expand from the ten original plaintiffs to all of the organizations on Lois Lerner’s hit list. This would greatly expand the risks to, and potential liability of, the government.

But the IRS, in a fitting bit of irony, refused to turn over the names of the organizations whose applications were mishandled, claiming that would violate the confidentiality requirements of Section 6103.

On April 1, in what must have seemed a cruel April Fool’s joke to the Justice Department lawyers handling the case, Judge Dlott denied a protective order sought by Justice Department to prevent the IRS from being forced to turn over this information. She pointed out that Section 6103 has an exemption for tax information “directly related to an issue in” a judicial proceeding. Since the identity of all of the targeted organizations “is directly related to the issue of class certification in this federal court proceeding,” she granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel. Specifically, she ordered to IRS to produce:

All charts, lists, spreadsheets or indexes of groups that had their Applications for Tax Exemption selected or flagged by the IRS for heightened review based on an infamous BOLO (Be On the Look Out) edict issued by IRS officials;
The document listing the 298 organizations that the IRS sent the Inspector General on June 11, 2012; and
The document titled “Advocacy Case Tracking Sheet” that the IRS sent the Inspector General on the same date.

Dlott also ordered the IRS to either admit or deny the authenticity of an IRS document obtained by USA Today and publicized in a story on Sept. 18, 2013 that listed 162 groups that were flagged because of their “anti-Obama rhetoric, inflammatory language, and emotional statements.”

The second piece is related to Grover Norquist's new book. Mr. Norquist is hardly a neutral observer, but the data cited in the work is what is relevant to this argument.

First, he cited a study on the Tea Party movement that found it pushed up to 5.8 million extra Republican voters to the polls in 2010 when the GOP took control of the House, essentially shutting down Obama's agenda.

Then he cites comments in official reports from former IRS executive Lois Lerner, the key figure in the scandal, who said that she received orders in advance of Obama's reelection to "do something" to shut off conservative funding in the wake of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.

He cited a speech she gave at Duke University in October 2010 in which she said the IRS was under pressure. "Everyone is up in arms because they don't like it," she said of the Citizens United case opening up the donor floodgates for conservatives. "The Federal Election Commission can't do anything about it. They want the IRS to fix the problem. The IRS laws are not set up to fix the problem ... so everyone is screaming at us right now: fix it now before the election," he quotes her saying.

Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

Two additional finds this week as the House oversight committee starts to release some of the more confidential aspects of the investigation.

The first is that it appears the IRS used IM specifically, and deliberately to avoid leaving records.

However, in an email uncovered by the Committee Lerner warns her colleagues about evading Congressional oversight:

“I was cautioning folks about email and how we have had several occasions where Congress has asked for emails and there has been an electronic search for responsive emails – so we need to be cautious about what we say in emails.”

Lerner then asks whether OCS is automatically archived. When informed it was not, Lerner responded “Perfect.”

While it is possible to set the instant messaging system to automatically archive messages, the IRS chose not to do so, according to one employee interviewed by the Committee.

The second revolves around the physical damage that led to the loss of a section of Ms. Lerner's emails that happen to cover exactly when alleged targeting would have started.

The House interviewed the technician who looked at the physical damage on her hard drive. He noticed concentric grooves cut into the disk (which isn't that odd, a hard drive that crashed might well do that). The technician concluded that they were consistent with a hard shock to the laptop. But he also noted that oddly he didn't see any damage to the case of laptop itself, as if the shock only occurred to the hard drive and not the surrounding laptop.

Additionally:

Last month, testimony from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) revealed that Lois Lerner’s hard drive had “scoring on the top platter of the drive.” The testimony also noted that the IRS technician that inspected the hard drive believed that additional steps could have been taken to recover data, although this did not occur and the hard drive was later destroyed by an industrial strength AMERI-SHRED AMS-750 HD shredder.

The laptop stops communicating with the IRS server around 5:00PM on a Saturday when it is presumably dropped. Now if Ms. Lerner was actually in the office working at that time, we would expect her to have called IT to report the broken system, but no such call comes until Monday. So, if we assume that Ms. Lerner was not in the office working at that point, who was, and how was the laptop damaged? And how was it damaged such that only the hard drive was destroyed?

"Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire

"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton

Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

It was, at one point, a point of rebuttal that there had been no legal adjudication of this. Setting aside that the DOJ was run by the same administration accused of targetting political opponents; that point is now moot. The 6th Circuit Court in California has found for nearly 100 plaintiffs (all right of center) in their case against the IRS. http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opin...6a0069p-06.pdf

Following the findings, the IRS settled pre-damage assessment phase to avoid a major pay out. One major concession was that the IRS agreed to pay more than $2M in legal fees. For those of you with blessedly less experience in a court room, paying legal fees is usually akin to admitting gross misconduct. Courts don't award legal fees except in extreme cases to facilitate judicial access.

So we can now check the last box, or nail to mimic the thread's op, and say the coffin is well and truly shut, just not how the OP saw it going down.

"Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire

"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton

Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

The largest problem with endings to political issues that occur years later, is that they have moved out of the public's consciousness, and the media sucks at their job of informing the people on the actual workings of the gov. So while this may have ended, it is so long now that it is neutered of its power to effect the public mood on the gov.

Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

Originally Posted by CowboyX

Progressives were not targeted?

Not according to the court finding. While one progressive group has successfully sued the IRS for incorrectly denying them coverage, their claim was under negligence rather than politically motivated denial of due process.

"Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire

"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton

Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

Originally Posted by Squatch347

Not according to the court finding. While one progressive group has successfully sued the IRS for incorrectly denying them coverage, their claim was under negligence rather than politically motivated denial of due process.

But that's not what the OP was about.

I wouldn't expect it to be in the court finding of a case only concerning Tea Party plantiffs - "Yet those are the grounds on which the plaintiffs allege they were mistreated by the IRS here." Your source, emphasis mine.

Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

Originally Posted by CowboyX

But that's not what the OP was about.

I wouldn't expect it to be in the court finding of a case only concerning Tea Party plantiffs - "Yet those are the grounds on which the plaintiffs allege they were mistreated by the IRS here." Your source, emphasis mine.

Interesting take. The title of the thread is about a supposed death of the IRS scandal. The scandal at issue was the IRS' targeting of conservative groups for additional, undue scrutiny. Thereby denying them equal protection. Equal protection does not mean that no other groups also had issues (especially with the other groups that had issues had them due to unrelated causes, as was the case here). It means that other groups weren't specifically targetted for increased scrutinty for inappropriate political reasons. That was the result of the court finding, that the IRS did, in fact, target conservative groups illegally.

Your OP and argument was that they weren't illegally targetting conservative groups because they were also targetting progressives. The implication was that because they were targetting progressives this wasn't politially motivated and thus legal. The court disagreed and found the targetting to be illegal violations of the equal protection clause. Hence, the OP is incorrect.

Let's put your quote in context:

Among the most serious allegations a federal court can address are that an Executive agency has targeted citizens for mistreatment based on their political views. No citizen—Republican or Democrat, socialist or libertarian—should be
targeted or even have to fear being targeted on those grounds. Yet those are the grounds on which the plaintiffs allege they were mistreated by the IRS here. The allegations are substantial: most are drawn from findings made by the Treasury Department’s own Inspector General for Tax Administration. Those findings include that the IRS used political criteria to round up applications for tax-exempt status filed by so-called tea-party groups; that the IRS often took four times as long to process tea-party applications as other applications; and that the IRS served tea-party applicants with crushing demands for what the Inspector General called “unnecessary information.”

...In 2010, the IRS began to pay unusual attention to 501(c) applications from groups with certain political affiliations. As found by the Inspector General, the IRS “developed and used inappropriate criteria to identify applications from organizations with ‘Tea Party’ in their names.” IG Report at 5. The IRS soon “expanded the criteria to inappropriately include organizations with other specific names (Patriots and 9/12) or policy positions.” Id. As to the policy positions, the IRS gave heightened scrutiny to organizations concerned with government spending, government debt or taxes,” “lobbying to ‘make America a better place to live[,]’” or No. 15-3793 In re United States of America Page 5 “criticiz[ing] how the country is being run[.]” Id. at 6. The IRS collected these criteria on a spreadsheet that would become known as the “‘Be On the Lookout’ listing” (or BOLO listing). Id. at 6. These “inappropriate criteria remained in place for more than 18 months.” Id. at 7. [Squatch note: this paragraph specifically rejects your claims]

"Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire

"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton